demigods

[Guest guest]

Can someone please explain to me about the body of brahma is it physical or spiritual, and Narada Muni is his body spiritual? Also can anyone tell me about the 3 worlds.

[Guest guest]

 

Can someone please explain to me about the body of brahma is it physical or spiritual, and Narada Muni is his body spiritual? Also can anyone tell me about the 3 worlds.

 

AND WHAT EXACTLY IS A "SPIRITUAL BODY"?

Spiritual is about Spirit. But what is a "spiritual body"? Its characteristics, properties? I have heard this term a number of times from the HKs.

This is among other terms that came into existence. Another one is "Supreme Personality of GodHead. Yet another term is "Karmi". Actually, nobody uses these terms in India - in yoga or in the Vedic culture/ Sanatana dharma. I was just wondering how exactly do the HKs define a "Spiritual Body".

Thanks.

Hari Bol.

[Nrsinghadev 0]

 

AND WHAT EXACTLY IS A "SPIRITUAL BODY"?

Spiritual is about Spirit. But what is a "spiritual body"? Its characteristics, properties? I have heard this term a number of times from the HKs.

This is among other terms that came into existence. Another one is "Supreme Personality of GodHead. Yet another term is "Karmi". Actually, nobody uses these terms in India - in yoga or in the Vedic culture/ Sanatana dharma. I was just wondering how exactly do the HKs define a "Spiritual Body".

Thanks.

Hari Bol.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

since all is Krishna's energy actually everything is spiritual. Therefore, that body which is always fully engaged in the service of Sri Sri Radha Krishna is considered to be a spiritual body. It may be temporary and made of the gross elements, but that gross energy is also Krishna's energy. So if that gross energy is used in service of the Supreme Lord, it taken as spiritual.

 

"HK's" is another one such terms that has come into existence recently, but who cares? I as a so-called "HK", never used the word "Karmi" in my life and yes we say Supreme Personality of Godhead simply to clarify that it is indeed Lord Krishna who is the source of all sources.

It doesn't matter if nobody uses these terms in India. it may simply be because either they don't have a deep enough grasp of the English language and/or don't speak English (and why should they, after all, they're in India?). As far as Vedic culture/sanatana dharma is concerned it would be better to ask: what Vedic culture/sanatana dharma? They are not even following it. Anyhow all these terms as such are not important, but the understanding of them is.

 

As far as the question goes this is what Narada Muni states in Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

 

S.B.1.6.27:

 

"And so, O Brāhmaṇa Vyāsadeva, in due course of time I, who was fully absorbed in thinking of Kṛṣṇa and who therefore had no attachments, being completely freed from all material taints, met with death, as lightning and illumination occur simultaneously.

 

 

S.B.1.6.28:

 

 

Having been awarded a transcendental body befitting an associate of the Personality of Godhead, I quit the body made of five material elements, and thus all acquired fruitive results of work [karma] stopped."

 

As far as Lord Brahma is concerned maybe somebody else can clarify the issue, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Haribol!

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

since all is Krishna's energy actually everything is spiritual. Therefore, that body which is always fully engaged in the service of Sri Sri Radha Krishna is considered to be a spiritual body. It may be temporary and made of the gross elements, but that gross energy is also Krishna's energy. So if that gross energy is used in service of the Supreme Lord, it taken as spiritual.

Considered by whom?? Considering and being are two intirely different situations. I can consider you as Narsimhadev! You may not be him! The gross material body is bound by its nature that simply being in service does not change! A material body is bound by the rules of maya and prakriti. Then may it be an ordinary person's body, or Srila Prabhupada's. It will decay and get old. This is the rule. Only rare souls can have complete control over their material bodily atoms. The term spiritual that you use for material body is symbolic. In yogic terms it means nothing!

 

 

"HK's" is another one such terms that has come into existence recently, but who cares? I as a so-called "HK", never used the word "Karmi" in my life and yes we say Supreme Personality of Godhead simply to clarify that it is indeed Lord Krishna who is the source of all sources.

It doesn't matter if nobody uses these terms in India. it may simply be because either they don't have a deep enough grasp of the English language and/or don't speak English (and why should they, after all, they're in India?).

 

Umm... I beg to differ really. The terms you use have nothing to do with the "depth of English language." 'Karmi' for instance is far from being an "english" term!! so what's your understanding of its depth? Karmi according to "HKs" is a worldy person, a person engaged in worldly activities, one who is not a (prefereably gaudiya) Krsna devotee as per HK understanding of service. Did you come across much often "the supreme personality of "god-'head'" in english dictionary?? What about the "spiritual body"? Do we see much of that term in the New Testament? or is it again a term taken from Yoga / Sanatana Dharma?

I fail to find it anywhere except the HKs! And if these terms are not all that important, why call everybody else names like "karmis" etc? I bet every HK is a karmi too. Anyone who is stranded in the gross physical body has to do some karma - good or bad as per his gunas and prakriti and that only should be the definition of a person performing any karma a karmi. HKs calling other karmis doesn't relieve them of the law of karma or free them of karmas. Hence we see, that the terms and their understanding by Indians and those practicing Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism have absolutely nothing to do with the "depth of english language"! Understanding of karma comes from the depths of Indian vedic knowledge that the english speaking gentlemen learnt and adopted world-over.

 

 

As far as Vedic culture/sanatana dharma is concerned it would be better to ask: what Vedic culture/sanatana dharma? They are not even following it.

The HKs surely are not following the original Sanatana Dharma! They are following gaudiya vaishnavism projected and advertised as Vedic dharma. How often do you study the Vedas to start with? Are your sadhna practices the same as that in the Vedic age? Sanatana Dharma is not just about chanting HK mantra. What happened to other Vedic sadhnas? Vedic Sanatana Dharma is not just about gaudiya line of vedantism! There is a big difference between the sadhnas of Vishwamitra, Lord Rama and say... prabhupada. umm... how Sanatana is one Vaishnava sect that doesn't accept any other part of this cultures simply dismissing it as "hodgepodge, is the question!!

[brajeshwara das 0]

We don't use the term karmi in my temple and I have seen that people were chastised for doing so, that a real 'karmi' is someone practicing karma yoga which is a bona fide method of linking with Krishna. Not simply mundane material exploitation. It isn't something to be derided. But from a point of preaching bhakti, you may say that is not going to get you the highest thing from the Gaudiya perspective, love of God that is pure Bhakti. That people make a mistake and misrepresent Gaudiya siddhanta is not surprising, this happens with every faith everywhere.

 

Anyhow, Gaudiya Vaisnavas recognize the four bona fide sampradayas but encourage everyone to take up Krishna Bhakti since we see it as the highest. My experience with other 'hindu' traditions and understanding of sanatan dharma is pretty limited to my line no doubt. I am reminded of this daily when I talk to my non-Gaudiya Vaisnava hindu friends. But I'm respectful and I know the Lord is beyond just one expression. I think it is sometimes hard for us to be simultaneously chaste to our line yet respectful of the diversity of expressions of faith, and Gaudiya Vaisnavas aren't immune to or alone in making offenses while trying to walk this line.

[Nrsinghadev 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

it appears the first explanation was lost on you. Let's take the example of prasadam, in other words foodstuffs that have been offered to and accepted by the Supreme Lord. That prasadam is spiritual, there is no question of that.

it is stated:

 

 

naivedyam jagadisasya

anna-panadikam ca yat

bhaksyabhaksya-vicaras ca

nasti tad-bhaksane dvijah

brahmavan-nirvikaram hi

yatha visnus tathaiva tat

vikaram ye prakurvanti

bhaksane tad dvijatayah

kustha-vyadhi-samayuktah

putra-dara-vivarjitah

nirayam yanti te vipras

tasman navartate punah

 

"O brahmanas, in the eating of food such as rice and water, etc., which has been tasted by the Lord of the universe, Sri Krsna, there is no consideration of whether it is eatable or uneatable. Just as Lord Visnu is spiritual and is not subject to mundane transformation, so in the same way His prasada is spiritual and untransformable. Those brahmanas, who consider that in the eating of visnu-prasada there is some mundane transformation of its spiritual qualities and thus it can become contaminated by contact with someone's mouth or hands, become afflicted with leprosy, become bereft of their sons and wife, and go to hell, never again to return from that place."

(Visnu Purana)

maha-prasade govinde

nama-brahmani vaisnave

svalpa-punya-vatam rajan

visvaso naiva jayate

(Mahabharata)

"O king, for those who have amassed very few pious activities, their faith in maha-prasada, in Sri Govinda, in the Holy Name and in the Vaisnava is never born."

So in the same way, that body which is offered to the Supreme Lord in full surrender (atma-nivedanam) is a spiritual body. That it is subject to the laws of material nature is of no consideration here.

 

 

Umm... I beg to differ really. The terms you use have nothing to do with the "depth of English language." 'Karmi' for instance is far from being an "english" term!! so what's your understanding of its depth? Karmi according to "HKs" is a worldy person, a person engaged in worldly activities, one who is not a (prefereably gaudiya) Krsna devotee as per HK understanding of service. Did you come across much often "the supreme personality of "god-'head'" in english dictionary?? What about the "spiritual body"? Do we see much of that term in the New Testament? or is it again a term taken from Yoga / Sanatana Dharma?

I fail to find it anywhere except the HKs! And if these terms are not all that important, why call everybody else names like "karmis" etc?

Well I was not referring to the word Karmi, the word which seems to bother you a whole lot. The phrase "Supreme personality of godhead" does not need to be in the dictionary for one to understand that word for word, it is plain English. That phrase, just like the phrase "spiritual body" is designed to distinguish it and set it apart, a tool in helping one gain a better understanding of the spiritual plane. There's no need for it to be confirmed by the latest Oxford Concise English Dictionary, nor does it need to be stated in the shastra for it to be allowed to be used.

Why would any man outside of the Gaudiya tradition know of these words, or use them? And what difference does it make that they do or don't?

It is not that because 500 million Indians don't know of these words that it therefore invalidates the Hare Krishna movement. Like I said, why would they know them in the first place, it is of no importance.

 

 

The HKs surely are not following the original Sanatana Dharma! They are following gaudiya vaishnavism projected and advertised as Vedic dharma. How often do you study the Vedas to start with? Are your sadhna practices the same as that in the Vedic age? Sanatana Dharma is not just about chanting HK mantra. What happened to other Vedic sadhnas? Vedic Sanatana Dharma is not just about gaudiya line of vedantism! There is a big difference between the sadhnas of Vishwamitra, Lord Rama and say... prabhupada. umm... how Sanatana is one Vaishnava sect that doesn't accept any other part of this cultures simply dismissing it as "hodgepodge, is the question!!

There are many dharma's indeed, and yours currently seems to constitute the discrediting of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas at any cost, as most of your posts convey. However that is not your sanatana dharma.

Neither is the chanting of the Maha mantra sanatana dharma. That is our yuga dharma, as revealed by shastra. Each yuga has it's particular yuga dharma, and they bring us TO our sanatana dharma. There are differences in the sadhana for each yuga dharma, and in this Kali yuga the yuga dharma is the chanting of the Maha mantra, so there is really no challlenge there.

When we speak of a sanatana dharma that means 'that eternal function of the living entity', then there is only one sanatan dharma, and it is indeed followed by the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, because it is every living entity's eternal constitutional position to be a servant of the Supreme Lord.

 

My advise to you is therefore that whatever path it is you follow, just stick to that, rather than creating a profession out of discrediting the Gaudiya Vaisnava line and it's practitioners, for that is sure to destroy your spiritual life completely.

 

All the best,

 

Haribol!

[Guest guest]

 

A material body is bound by the rules of maya and prakriti. Then may it be an ordinary person's body, or Srila Prabhupada's. It will decay and get old.

 

In the case of the Lord and His pure devotees, they are not bound by the laws of maya, prakriti, and karma. It may appear that way, but that is simply nara lila. Many people think that Lord Krsna was killed by the arrow of a hunter. He may have arranged things so that it appeared that way, but actually His Appearance and Disappearance occur solely by the sweet will of the Lord, not due to His material energies. Similarly with His pure devotees:

 

 

Sri Upadesamrta, Sloka 6:

 

drishtaih svabhava-janitair vapushas ca doshair

na prakritatvam iha bhakta janasya pasyet

gangambhasam na khalu budbuda-phena-pankair

brahma-dravatvam apagacchati nira-dharmaih

 

Translation:

 

Being situated in his original Krishna conscious position, a pure devotee does not identify with the body. Such a devotee should not be seen from a materialistic point of view. Indeed, one should overlook a devotee's having a body born in a low family, a body with a bad complexion, a deformed body, or a diseased or infirm body. According to ordinary vision, such imperfections may seem prominent in the body of a pure devotee, but despite such seeming defects, the body of a pure devotee cannot be polluted. It is exactly like the waters of the Ganges, which sometimes during the rainy season are full of bubbles, foam and mud. The Ganges waters do not become polluted. Those who are advanced in spiritual understanding will bathe in the Ganges without considering the condition of the water.

 

Purport:

 

Avyabhicarini bhakti means unalloyed devotion. A person engaged in devotional service must be free from material motives. In this Krishna consciousness movement, one's consciousness must be changed. If consciousness is aimed toward material enjoyment, it is material consciousness, and if it is aimed toward serving Krishna, it is Krishna consciousness. A surrendered soul serves Krishna without material considerations (anyabhilashita-sunyam [bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.1.11]). Jnana-karmady-anavritam: unalloyed devotional service, which is transcendental to the activities of the body and mind, such as jnana (mental speculation) and karma (fruitive work), is called pure bhakti-yoga. Bhakti-yoga is the proper activity of the soul, and when one actually engages in unalloyed, uncontaminated devotional service, he is already liberated (sa gunan samatityaitan [bg. 14.26]). Krishna's devotee is not subjected to material condition, even though his bodily features may appear materially conditioned. One should therefore not see a pure devotee from a materialistic point of view. Unless one is actually a devotee, he cannot see another devotee perfectly. As explained in the previous verse, there are three types of devotees -- kanishtha-adhikari, madhyama-adhikari and uttama-adhikari. The kanishtha-adhikari cannot distinguish between a devotee and nondevotee. He is simply concerned with worshiping the Deity in the temple. A madhyama-adhikari, however, can distinguish between the devotee and nondevotee, as well as between the devotee and the Lord. Thus he treats the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the devotee and the nondevotee in different ways.

 

If we consider the bodily defects of a Vaishnava, we should understand that we are committing an offense at the lotus feet of the Vaishnava. An offense at the lotus feet of a Vaishnava is very serious. Indeed, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has described this offense as hati-mata, the mad elephant offense. A mad elephant can create a disaster, especially when it enters into a nicely trimmed garden. One should therefore be very careful not to commit any offense against a Vaishnava.

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

it appears the first explanation was lost on you. Let's take the example of prasadam, in other words foodstuffs that have been offered to and accepted by the Supreme Lord. That prasadam is spiritual, there is no question of that.

it is stated:

So in the same way, that body which is offered to the Supreme Lord in full surrender (atma-nivedanam) is a spiritual body. That it is subject to the laws of material nature is of no consideration here.

 

No your explaination was not lost, but rather not accepted.

The very concept that a body that is in service to the lord is not subjected to the laws of material nature is a balony. It is not true as has been demonstrated numerous times by Gauduya devotees. Can you take prabhupadas example and back up your statement?

 

 

Well I was not referring to the word Karmi, the word which seems to bother you a whole lot. The phrase "Supreme personality of godhead" does not need to be in the dictionary for one to understand that word for word, it is plain English. That phrase, just like the phrase "spiritual body" is designed to distinguish it and set it apart, a tool in helping one gain a better understanding of the spiritual plane. There's no need for it to be confirmed by the latest Oxford Concise English Dictionary, nor does it need to be stated in the shastra for it to be allowed to be used.

Why would any man outside of the Gaudiya tradition know of these words, or use them? And what difference does it make that they do or don't?

It is not that because 500 million Indians don't know of these words that it therefore invalidates the Hare Krishna movement. Like I said, why would they know them in the first place, it is of no importance.

As a matter of fact anything that does not come under the gaudiya understanding is of no importance. Of course these terms are not of much importance. But when you go out in the world forcing people to take and accept God and spiritual life by your exact terms, then they matter. They matter when they are not in line with the shastra and yoga.

 

 

 

There are many dharma's indeed, and yours currently seems to constitute the discrediting of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas at any cost, as most of your posts convey. However that is not your sanatana dharma.

Neither is the chanting of the Maha mantra sanatana dharma. That is our yuga dharma, as revealed by shastra. Each yuga has it's particular yuga dharma, and they bring us TO our sanatana dharma. There are differences in the sadhana for each yuga dharma, and in this Kali yuga the yuga dharma is the chanting of the Maha mantra, so there is really no challlenge there.

When we speak of a sanatana dharma that means 'that eternal function of the living entity', then there is only one sanatan dharma, and it is indeed followed by the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, because it is every living entity's eternal constitutional position to be a servant of the Supreme Lord.

 

My advise to you is therefore that whatever path it is you follow, just stick to that, rather than creating a profession out of discrediting the Gaudiya Vaisnava line and it's practitioners, for that is sure to destroy your spiritual life completely.

 

Thanks for the nice advise for my spiritual life. umm.. general speaking, this is a good advice. BUT, I have come face to face again and again the 'confrontation of other eastern philosophies" agenda of the gaudiyas. And this is a reason, why they tend to evoke confrontation. The anti-yogi, anti-hindu, anti all other lines of philosophy stance of the gaudiyas brings them to conflict from the other parties or lines of dharma. My intention is not to discredit the gaudiyas or their good practices, but to discredit this confrontation agenda of the gaudiyas. Who claim that theirs is the only way etc.

I really appreciate and like the pure bhakti concepts and sankirtana. I would be discrediting my own self if I go against devotional love and service and loving relationship between God and man. And this constitutes the core part of gaudiya vaishnavism just as other branches of Vaishnavism and Shaivism.

[Guest guest]

 

In the case of the Lord and His pure devotees, they are not bound by the laws of maya, prakriti, and karma. It may appear that way, but that is simply nara lila. Many people think that Lord Krsna was killed by the arrow of a hunter. He may have arranged things so that it appeared that way, but actually His Appearance and Disappearance occur solely by the sweet will of the Lord, not due to His material energies. Similarly with His pure devotees:

Srila Prabhupada is hailed by his followers as a "Pure devotee". I don't want to debate that. I respect him. But his body decayed and finally expired, just as he repeatedly explained this phenomenon of a gross material body's degeneration explained in the BG. This is the rule of maya. And he was no exception at all. Nor are you, devotee or not. To cover it up as lila etc later on is the work of fable writers. Devotees due to their sentimental attachments, do so. If you want to hint that Prabhupada if wanted, could have changed his physical body on free will like a few yogis can do, then I'm not ready to believe that. If someone has a power he will use it. Paramahansa Yogananda's body did not show any signs of decay after his mahasamadhi even after 15 (or 20) days, kept under normal room conditions.

In case of Krsna, yes I agree. But even Krsna, the lord and wielder of maya and prakriti, respected the law of this prakriti established by himself. So can we get a little real please? There are exceptions to the rules when a highly exalted devotee is bestowed upon the power to overide some aspects of his material nature. I agree to this, and have seen examples of it too. But simply stating that oh he's a devotee and is not affected or bound by nature and laws of karm, maya, prakriti is deceiving people and is like living in clouds. The difference between between a pure devotee and a non devotee is that a devotee has access to help and mercy from his lord, which may not necessarily include his ability to defy the laws of nature.

[Guest guest]

I noticed that you were unable to reply to Nrsingadeva prabhu's very nice message, and instead focused on mine. You make some rather bizarre assumptions.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada is hailed by his followers as a "Pure devotee". I don't want to debate that.

 

Then you proceeded to do just that, claiming that Srila Prabhupada was subject to the rules of maya.

 

 

But even Krsna, the lord and wielder of maya and prakriti, respected the law of this prakriti established by himself.

 

Umm, yes. This was the simple point I was making, which apparently you overlooked. The vast majority of pure devotees who are sent to this planet by Sri Krsna do not float down in a mystical fashion like Narada Muni and then fly back up when their mission is complete. No, they appear and disappear seemingly like other human beings. Hence the phrase "nara lila", human-like pastimes. The difference is, it is all arranged by Krsna Himself; not by maya, not by karma. Your example of Yogananda is rather weak. How do you know Srila Prabhupada did not display the same symptoms after his samadhi? And if Yogananda took birth and then later died, then by your logic it must have been due to maya. Please be consistent. Either he was a pure devotee who was not bound by the laws of karma and maya, or he wasn't.

 

 

If someone has a power he will use it.

 

If you're speaking of mystical siddhis, not necessarily, at least not for Vaishnavas, although there have been instances where these siddhis were manifested. Regardless, Srila Prabhupada's "power" was his ability to spread the chanting of Hare Krsna around the world and to turn mlecchas into Vaishnavas.

 

I implore you to kindly not mention Srila Prabhupada's name, being that you are only committing offenses. In closing, allow me to repeat what H.G. Nrsinghadev prabhu said: "My advise to you is therefore that whatever path it is you follow, just stick to that, rather than creating a profession out of discrediting the Gaudiya Vaisnava line and it's practitioners, for that is sure to destroy your spiritual life completely.

 

All the best."

[Guest guest]

 

I noticed that you were unable to reply to Nrsingadeva prabhu's very nice message, and instead focused on mine. You make some rather bizarre assumptions.

I think you are not able to notice enough?! I did reply to his message. Go back and read. If you are pointing to a gross physical body being bound by rules of prakriti as "bizarre", then there is nothing I can do.

 

 

Then you proceeded to do just that, claiming that Srila Prabhupada was subject to the rules of maya.

As a matter of fact, the gaudiya understanding of 'maya' is very limited. So all the 'devotees' are automatically free of maya in it.

But this is not so. Maya is the subtle tool that runs the subtle and grosser material prakriti. Are you trying to hint that Abhay Charan BhaktiVedanta Prabhupada's body was free from the physical rules governing this planet?? Are you on drugs or what? That would mean that he would not fall sick, not grow old and would be able to defy the need to eat, sleep, drink etc. These are basic rules of prakriti needed to sustain a gross material body. And Prabhupada was absolutely NO EXCEPTION!! Whether he was a "pure devotee" has nothing to do with it. To understand maya more, you have to study shaktism. Vaishnavism does not do much justice explaining it.

 

Umm, yes. This was the simple point I was making, which apparently you overlooked. The vast majority of pure devotees who are sent to this planet by Sri Krsna do not float down in a mystical fashion like Narada Muni and then fly back up when their mission is complete. No, they appear and disappear seemingly like other human beings. Hence the phrase "nara lila", human-like pastimes. The difference is, it is all arranged by Krsna Himself; not by maya, not by karma. Your example of Yogananda is rather weak. How do you know Srila Prabhupada did not display the same symptoms after his samadhi? And if Yogananda took birth and then later died, then by your logic it must have been due to maya. Please be consistent. Either he was a pure devotee who was not bound by the laws of karma and maya, or he wasn't.

I understand that part. There are sadhaks and pure devotees that have a mission on earth. And there are ones who are 'jeevan-mukta' or free from teh bondage of karma. I'm aware of that. Still they repect the rules of nature. There has been no evidence of Prabhupada was able to defy the rules of prakriti. He was a good orator, and a powerful preacher.

 

 

If you're speaking of mystical siddhis, not necessarily, at least not for Vaishnavas, although there have been instances where these siddhis were manifested. Regardless, Srila Prabhupada's "power" was his ability to spread the chanting of Hare Krsna around the world and to turn mlecchas into Vaishnavas.

I implore you to kindly not mention Srila Prabhupada's name, being that you are only committing offenses. In closing, allow me to repeat what H.G. Nrsinghadev prabhu said: "My advise to you is therefore that whatever path it is you follow, just stick to that, rather than creating a profession out of discrediting the Gaudiya Vaisnava line and it's practitioners, for that is sure to destroy your spiritual life completely.

All the best."

Why not? What's wrong in mentioning Prabhupad's name? I don't believe in that "offences" scare crow tactic. And besides Stila Prabhupada never shyed away from calling other Gurus of his time as Rascals etc. Even great people like Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa were not spared. They were also devotees. What happened to Panditah samadarshita? What happend to the "offences" philosophy then? Again, I don't have a profession on discrediting HKs. I can take care of my spiritual life by defending the HK putting down of yoga, Hindus and everything else besides themselves. You demand supreme respect for your sampradaya and leaders, but do not respect others. What's the philosophy Prabhu? If you do not see a highly respectful and humble tone, then the other person automatically is considered "offensive" and his spiritual life will go down? You call Lord Shiva as a mere "Demigod"! What is more offensive? See where your spiritual is going...

All the best to you.

[Guest guest]

Dear fellow Bhaktas, spiritual seekers,

I would like to add, that a couple of HK prabhus considered me as offensive since I don't feel obliged to agree exactly with their line of philosophy.

I would like to clarify that I don't have an agenda to discredit HK or its philosophy at all as is being wrongly perceived by Narsinghadev das and Guest105.

But I surely would like to defend the putting down of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma and, Yoga, Tantra, and other Vedic practices, that are dismissed as "mysticism" and non Vaishnava, projecting them as low and not so intelligent as the Gaudiya ways. I also want to make aware newcomers to Eastern spiritual beliefs that Lord Shiva is not a demi God as wrongly presented by some. This is offensive. Just like considering Krsna as simply a cowheardsman is offensive.

Still, if any of you felt offended, - PAMHO!

 

Om Namah Shivaya!

[Guest guest]

 

You demand supreme respect for your sampradaya and leaders, but do not respect others. What's the philosophy Prabhu? If you do not see a highly respectful and humble tone, then the other person automatically is considered "offensive" and his spiritual life will go down? You call Lord Shiva as a mere "Demigod"!

 

You don't know me and I have never said any of the things you accuse me of. Strawman arguments. Going off on irrational, emotionally-surcharged tangents that have nothing to do with the original topics being discussed. You are coming across as a total nutcase and it is pointless debating anything remotely philosphical with you.

[Guest guest]

 

You don't know me and I have never said any of the things you accuse me of. Strawman arguments. Going off on irrational, emotionally-surcharged tangents that have nothing to do with the original topics being discussed. You are coming across as a total nutcase and it is pointless debating anything remotely philosphical with you.

I'm not intereted in your so called philosophical rants.

Of course anybody who does not accept you comes on as a nutcase to you.

The topic disscused was about Spiritual body, a term that in itself is not properly expainable by you. What more do you have to say? Whats the use of debating philosophy without anything practical?

[Guest guest]

 

You don't know me and I have never said any of the things you accuse me of. Strawman arguments. Going off on irrational, emotionally-surcharged tangents that have nothing to do with the original topics being discussed. You are coming across as a total nutcase and it is pointless debating anything remotely philosphical with you.

I'm not intereted in your so called philosophical rants.

Of course anybody who does not accept you comes on as a nutcase to you.

The topic disscused was about Spiritual body, a term that in itself is not properly expainable by you. What more do you have to say? Whats the use of debating fabled philosophy without anything practical?

[Guest guest]

 

You don't know me and I have never said any of the things you accuse me of. Strawman arguments. Going off on irrational, emotionally-surcharged tangents that have nothing to do with the original topics being discussed. You are coming across as a total nutcase and it is pointless debating anything remotely philosphical with you.

Dear Guest105, I'm not intereted in your so called philosophical rants. And this is not just about you!! Its about the approach. Of course anybody who does not accept you comes off as a nutcase to you.

The topic disscused was about Spiritual Body, a term that in itself is not properly expainable by you. And about a physical body that is sweeping floors in some temple while thinking of life on other planets and not getting affected by cold or heat! lol! What more do you have to say? Whats the use of debating fabled philosophy without anything practical?

[Guest guest]

 

The topic disscused was about Spiritual Body

 

Yes, and instead of addressing that discussion, you felt a need to attack Srila Prabhupada, then you shifted gears and accused me of attacking hindus, yoga, Lord Shiva and other imaginary things that you felt I said.

 

Is there a moderator around here?

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, and instead of addressing that discussion, you felt a need to attack Srila Prabhupada, then you shifted gears and accused me of attacking hindus, yoga, Lord Shiva and other imaginary things that you felt I said. Is there a moderator around here?

 

Hi! lol are you calling up for a moderator like for a policeman? lol! That sounds kinda scary!

I didn't specificaly blame you for all that, but this is the HK trend for most part unfortunately. Sorryif you don't think so. And please don't take my mentioning Srila Prabhupada as an attack on him or anything. If you carefully read my messages, I have not really attacked Prabhupada. I just gave him as an example since he is considered as a purer devotee. I gave the example of a physical body that still is governed by the universal rules of nature, even though it belonged to a pure devotee. But you can't even hear hsi name. No one is putting down Srila Prabhupada here. Though it is well recorded that he used to call rascals etc.. even to many other spiritual personalities like Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda, Rabundranath Tagore and others..Hindus.. I don't fully agree with that. But I'm not really putting him down. He simply wanted to reform certain things as per his perspective of Vedas.

[mahak 0]

Seeing things as they are is NOT a character flaw.

 

Srila Prabhupada's biological form passed away. This was a spiritual form, however, the question of governance is not negated by the way this form was utilized. King Bhisma's form could not maintain the spiritual essence of the mahabhagavat. King Vidura gives Dhritarastra proper instructions on what happens when the biology breaks down.

 

The person has not committed an offense to Prabhupada by saying that he got old and sick and passed away. Only foolish sentimentalists have this really weird notion. And what good did Yoganandas mysticism do him, dead is dead, even with smoothe skin and flowing black hair at age 65, dead is dead.

 

I also agree that to consider Lord Siva as a mere demigod is extremely offensive. The post of a demigod may be attained by a jiva upon completeion of practices over many lifetimes. The post of Lord Siva is unique, and not transferable, such as a post of a particular demigod. There is no post of Lord Siva, he is in a catagory of himself. According to the mathmatics of Nectar of Devotion, the qualities of Krsna are the measuring device. Lord Brahma has 78% of these qualities, and his post as Lord Of Siddhaloka can be attained by the jiva. However, beyond these qualities, Lord Siva has 84%, therefore, his position is unique. (Govinda, Gopala, Krsna, Syamasundara, Gauranga = 100%. Lord Balarama, Lord Nityananda = 96%. Lord Narayana, other various visnu-tattwa incarnations = 92%) Using the formula described by Srila Prabhupada, we note that Lord Siva is unattainable, not Visnu tattwa, but not jiva, either.

 

no bad feelings (nor cries for moderation) from here, y.k.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

 

Seeing things as they are is NOT a character flaw.

 

Agreed. Would it not therefore also stand that seeing things as they are not is a character flaw?

 

 

The person has not committed an offense to Prabhupada by saying that he got old and sick and passed away. Only foolish sentimentalists have this really weird notion

 

Respectfully, you missed the point. Only that it is an offense to think that his body got old and sick due to MAYA or KARMA, a very simple point which has been repeated several times. I'd like to believe that you're not calling Srila Rupa Gosvami Prabhupada foolish.

 

 

I also agree that to consider Lord Siva as a mere demigod is extremely offensive.

 

I also agree that hunting, stalking, and killing innocent animals by initiated devotees and offering flesh to Lord Sri Krsna, then consuming it, is extremely offensive. As is sexually abusing women and children. However, these are not the topics of discussion here. Your good friend here, y k, has put words in my mouth which I never said. And you as well, it appears. Is it possible to debate an issue without suddenly drifting off into ridiculous tangents?

 

Just to make things a bit clearer, allow me to explain further about the tactics your good friend y k is engaging in: "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. --Wikipedia

 

"it may succeed in persuading people." Apparently his cute little tactic worked.

[Guest guest]

 

Agreed. Would it not therefore also stand that seeing things as they are not is a character flaw?

 

Respectfully, you missed the point. Only that it is an offense to think that his body got old and sick due to MAYA or KARMA, a very simple point which has been repeated several times. I'd like to believe that you're not calling Srila Rupa Gosvami Prabhupada foolish.

Did we hear someone say something bad or foolish about anybody as you are trying to hint? Since your understanding of the very term 'Maya' is not complete, you are feeling offended over its usage. As I have tried to explain before, that maya is the tool that governs the grosser prakriti. And as per the law of nature, it affects all material bodies. And Prabhupada's body was not an exception. This is what I have tried to simply state.

 

A person is not under maya if he's not taking alcohol, meat, having illicit sex etc.. - is a superfluous understanding of Maya.

 

 

 

I also agree that hunting, stalking, and killing innocent animals by initiated devotees and offering flesh to Lord Sri Krsna, then consuming it, is extremely offensive. As is sexually abusing women and children. However, these are not the topics of discussion here.

Are you trying to entertain us then?

 

 

Your good friend here, y k, has put words in my mouth which I never said. And you as well, it appears. Is it possible to debate an issue without suddenly drifting off into ridiculous tangents?

I'm pleased to know, I have a friend here! A good one at that!

[Nrsinghadev 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

No your explaination was not lost, but rather not accepted.

The very concept that a body that is in service to the lord is not subjected to the laws of material nature is a balony. It is not true as has been demonstrated numerous times by Gauduya devotees. Can you take prabhupadas example and back up your statement?

You don't accept the explanation, thinking it is my explanation or concoction, but that is not the fact. The fact is that it is Vishnu's conclusion, so if you don't agree with Him you'll have to take it up with Him.

 

from Sri Caitanya Caritamrta antya lila 4.191:

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.

This means you are calling Caitanya Mahaprabhu as being full of balony.

 

But wait, here you say:

 

 

Dear fellow Bhaktas, spiritual seekers,

I would like to add, that a couple of HK prabhus considered me as offensive since I don't feel obliged to agree exactly with their line of philosophy.

I would like to clarify that I don't have an agenda to discredit HK or its philosophy at all as is being wrongly perceived by Narsinghadev das and Guest105.

Then you say:

 

As a matter of fact, the gaudiya understanding of 'maya' is very limited. So all the 'devotees' are automatically free of maya in it.

 

To understand maya more, you have to study shaktism. Vaishnavism does not do much justice explaining it.

 

But I'm not really putting him down. He simply wanted to reform certain things as per his perspective of Vedas.

It is not Prabhupada's perspective of the Vedas, it is Krishna's perspective, it is Vyasadeva's perspective. There is no question of interpretation.

 

So by putting 2 and 2 together we get the result that you have indeed been (very) offensive, by calling Mahaprabhu as being full of balony, by equating a pure devotee of the Lord with a common man and by questioning the philosophy which is put forward by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is God Himself.

 

So the conclusion is that you are simply not accepting the authority of shastra. Besides the quote I have placed here in my previous post, there are other quotes like this one from Padma Purana, that leave no room for interpretation:

 

 

 

 

arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhir visnor va vaisnavanam kali-mala-mathane pada-tirthe 'mbu-buddhih sri-visnor namni mantre sakala-kalusa-he sabda-samanya-buddhir visnau sarvesvarese tad-itara-sama-dhir yasya va naraki sah

 

"One who thinks the Deity in the temple to be made of wood or stone, who thinks of the spiritual master in the disciplic succession as an ordinary man, who thinks the Vaisnava in the Acyuta-gotra to belong to a certain caste or creed or who thinks of caranamrta or Ganges water as ordinary water is taken to be a resident of hell." (Padma Purana)

Tell me, do you consider the deity in the temple a material item made of stone or wood? If not, then certainly you will be able to appreciate that the same goes for the body of the spiritual master. But if you do, then it is to be understood that you are not accepting the conclusion of the shastra, and that is duskrtinam, most unfortunate.

 

Anyhow, that was the explanation of how the pure devotee of Lord has a spiritual body, even in this world.

The other explanation of "spiritual body" is: That transcendental body which a God-realized soul achieves upon quitting his current body. When such a soul enters the Vaikuntha region, one receives an appropriate and changeless spiritual body according to one's ishta deva.

That body which the pure devotee leaves behind however, is still a spiritual body and worthy of worship, that is the reason why such a body is put into samadhi, rather then burned to ashes.

 

 

 

Shortly after that time we returned to the Krishna-Balarama Mandir and made all arrangements for his mahotsava. According to his wishes we took him on procession in front of most of the important deities of Vrindavana. There were so many of his disciples and other persons chanting in that procession. All of the Vraja-vasis came into the streets to honor him. After this, I prepared his body. I wrote the special mantras on his chest and forehead with tilaka. I used the salt for his body. Then, following all of the proper Vaisnava procedures, I put his transcendental body into samadhi with my own hand.

----Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

I sincerely hope that you understand this subject matter now, so that in the future any such aparadha may be prevented.

I don't believe in that "offences" scare crow tactic.

Vaishnava aparadha is the worst possible offense one can make. In fact it is so horrible that even Lord Vishnu Himself cannot free one from it's awkward and inauspicious backlash. Therefore again, by claiming it a scarecrow tactic and by "not believing" in it, you are once more defying the authority of the Vedic scriptures. A perfect example of the horrible offense that is Vaisnava aparadha is given in S.B. 9.4, the story of Ambarish Maharaj and Durvasa Muni. You would do well to read it.

 

As a result of Durvasa Muni's offending Ambarisha Maharaj he was chased by the Lord's Sudarshana Chakra troughout the galaxy. Durvasa Muni sought shelter at the feet of respectively Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana, but all to no avail. They could not save him, so Lord Narayana spoke to Durvasa Muni:

 

 

 

SB 9.4.68: The pure devotee is always within the core of My heart, and I am always in the heart of the pure devotee. My devotees do not know anything else but Me, and I do not know anyone else but them.

 

 

SB 9.4.69: O brāhmaṇa, let Me now advise you for your own protection. Please hear from Me. By offending Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, you have acted with self-envy. Therefore you should go to him immediately, without a moment's delay. One's so-called prowess, when employed against the devotee, certainly harms he who employs it. Thus it is the subject, not the object, who is harmed.

SB 9.4.70: For a brāhmaṇa, austerity and learning are certainly auspicious, but when acquired by a person who is not gentle, such austerity and learning are most dangerous.

SB 9.4.71: O best of the brāhmaṇas, you should therefore go immediately to King Ambarīṣa, the son of Mahārāja Nābhāga. I wish you all good fortune. If you can satisfy Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, then there will be peace for you.

 

So please do not take light upon the gravity of the offense that is Vaishnava aparadha.

 

As for the word Karmi, that is not (or is not supposed to be) used as slander, to put down anyone. They are simply designations to categorize the different types of people, no malicious intent included. Fact is that there are people who are engaged in performing karma according to the Vedic injunctions (karmi's), there are those who are in (search of) knowledge of the impersonal or transcendental (jnani's(B.G.7.17-18 word mentioned)) and there are those who's hearts remain connected with Sri Bhagavan or who endeavour for spiritual perfection (yogi's(B.G.6.28 word mentioned)). These explanations are perfectly in accordance with shastra. The words jnani and yogi are acceptable so why get hung up on the word karmi?

It was used by Prabhupada in a similar fashion as he used the designations jnani and yogi, no foul intent there.

 

But I surely would like to defend the putting down of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma and, Yoga, Tantra, and other Vedic practices, that are dismissed as "mysticism" and non Vaishnava, projecting them as low and not so intelligent as the Gaudiya ways.

We Gaudiya's are not on a high horse. We simply repeat what Krishna Has said in the Bhagavad Gita, and what is said in the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is the shastric conclusion that Kevala Bhakti, or unalloyed devotion, to Sri Sri Radha Krishna is superior to all other forms of worship. That is not a Gaudiya conclusion, it is plainly stated in scripture time and again.

 

B.G. 6.47:

 

 

yoginām api sarveṣāḿ

mad-gatenāntar-ātmanā

śraddhāvān bhajate yo māḿ

sa me yuktatamo mataḥ

"And of all yogis, he who always abides in Me with great faith, worshipping me in transcendental loving service, is most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all."

The truth is not equally palatable to all. We are speakers of the highest truth, not proudly so, but simply as parrots repeating the opinion of the Supreme Lord.

 

For example I myself have no qualification to claim anything, but I am simply repeating the words of Krishna and the spiritual masters, therefore it becomes bonafide. This is also what Prabhupada said about himself, in all his humility.

 

By parroting and following strictly the rules and regulations as per our guruvarga and the order of the bonafide guru, we are also gradually realizing that Truth, and indeed there are lots of devotees worldwide who are situated in that Truth. As such it is not just dry parroting. Although it may be just that in the beginning, in due time the taste will come, if one strictly adheres to the orders of one's spiritual master.

 

Any spiritual path that is not directed at the Supreme Lord is inferior, there is ample Vedic evidence to back up this statement. Similarly out of those paths, the path of kevala bhakti yoga to Lord Krishna is the highest path, and of this statement there is also ample Vedic evidence.

 

What can we do about it? We did not make it that way, Krishna did. There's no such thing as HK propaganda or hidden agenda's. The only "propaganda" we're making is freely handing out the exact words of Krishna to everyone, surely that is not a crime? In fact they are words that should be propagated all over the world.

 

And if those words sound like the putting down of every other religious path, then sorry, but we cannot and will not bend the truth in order for us to please and appease everyone.

 

This is not possible. Truth is one, but those who are under the clutches maya will not agree to that truth. That is their misfortune.

If we would bend the truth, and thus would not repeat the instructions and words of our guru parampara, we ourselves plus the whole pure message will become spoiled, corrupted.

 

As far as Prabhupada's word usage is concerned I can say that those who Prabhupada labelled as fools and rascals are also validated by shastra as being exactly that. He was and still is cutting down the jungle of confusion with his pure sword of truth. Lots of weed and poisonous undergrowth will object to their being cut down, but the result be that the truth will be lifted out of the quagmire of halftruths and blatant lies. His weapon of words were exactly appropriate at that time, and frankly I find them to be appropriate at all times.

 

I would invite you to come and test for yourself to see if it is true. It is not an empty bluff. There is practice also. Sincerely take up this practice of bhakti yoga and you will find out for yourself.

 

Wishing you all the best in your spiritual endeavours,

 

Haribol!

[bija 0]

 

Caitanya-caritamrta Antya lila 4.191

 

prabhu kahe, — "vaiṣṇava-deha 'prākṛta' kabhu naya

'aprākṛta' deha bhaktera 'cid-ānanda-maya'

 

SYNONYMS

 

prabhu kahe — Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu said; vaiṣṇava deha — the body of a Vaiṣṇava; prākṛta — material; kabhu naya — is never; aprākṛta — transcendental; deha — body; bhaktera — of a devotee; cit-ānanda-maya — full of transcendental bliss.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu said, "The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.

 

PURPORT

 

Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu is trying to convince Haridāsa Ṭhākura and Sanātana Gosvāmī that a devotee whose life is dedicated to the service of the Lord is never in the material conception. Because he always engages in the service of the Lord, his body is transcendental and full of spiritual bliss. One should never consider his body material, just as one should never consider the body of the Deity worshiped in the temple to be made of stone or wood. Factually, the Deity is directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without a doubt. The injunctions of the Padma Purāṇa therefore state, arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matir vaiṣṇave jāti-buddhiḥ . . . yasya vā nārakī saḥ: "That person is a resident of hell who considers the Deity worshiped in the temple to be stone or wood, who considers the spiritual master an ordinary man, and who thinks that the body of a Vaiṣṇava fully dedicated to the service of the Lord belongs to the material modes of nature."

Dear Nrsinghadeva Prabhu,

 

Could you please clarify as to how the body of a Vaisnava, dedicated to the service of the Lord, does not belong to the material modes of nature?

 

Maybe clarification on this point will clear up Y.k's doubts.

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

You don't accept the explanation, thinking it is my explanation or concoction, but that is not the fact. The fact is that it is Vishnu's conclusion, so if you don't agree with Him you'll have to take it up with Him.

 

from Sri Caitanya Caritamrta antya lila 4.191:

 

This means you are calling Caitanya Mahaprabhu as being full of balony.

 

But wait, here you say:

 

Then you say:

It is not Prabhupada's perspective of the Vedas, it is Krishna's perspective, it is Vyasadeva's perspective. There is no question of interpretation.

 

So by putting 2 and 2 together we get the result that you have indeed been (very) offensive, by calling Mahaprabhu as being full of balony, by equating a pure devotee of the Lord with a common man and by questioning the philosophy which is put forward by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is God Himself.

 

So the conclusion is that you are simply not accepting the authority of shastra. Besides the quote I have placed here in my previous post, there are other quotes like this one from Padma Purana, that leave no room for interpretation:

 

Tell me, do you consider the deity in the temple a material item made of stone or wood? If not, then certainly you will be able to appreciate that the same goes for the body of the spiritual master. But if you do, then it is to be understood that you are not accepting the conclusion of the shastra, and that is duskrtinam, most unfortunate.

 

Anyhow, that was the explanation of how the pure devotee of Lord has a spiritual body, even in this world.

The other explanation of "spiritual body" is: That transcendental body which a God-realized soul achieves upon quitting his current body. When such a soul enters the Vaikuntha region, one receives an appropriate and changeless spiritual body according to one's ishta deva.

That body which the pure devotee leaves behind however, is still a spiritual body and worthy of worship, that is the reason why such a body is put into samadhi, rather then burned to ashes.

 

 

I sincerely hope that you understand this subject matter now, so that in the future any such aparadha may be prevented.

Vaishnava aparadha is the worst possible offense one can make. In fact it is so horrible that even Lord Vishnu Himself cannot free one from it's awkward and inauspicious backlash. Therefore again, by claiming it a scarecrow tactic and by "not believing" in it, you are once more defying the authority of the Vedic scriptures. A perfect example of the horrible offense that is Vaisnava aparadha is given in S.B. 9.4, the story of Ambarish Maharaj and Durvasa Muni. You would do well to read it.

 

As a result of Durvasa Muni's offending Ambarisha Maharaj he was chased by the Lord's Sudarshana Chakra troughout the galaxy. Durvasa Muni sought shelter at the feet of respectively Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana, but all to no avail. They could not save him, so Lord Narayana spoke to Durvasa Muni:

 

 

So please do not take light upon the gravity of the offense that is Vaishnava aparadha.

 

As for the word Karmi, that is not (or is not supposed to be) used as slander, to put down anyone. They are simply designations to categorize the different types of people, no malicious intent included. Fact is that there are people who are engaged in performing karma according to the Vedic injunctions (karmi's), there are those who are in (search of) knowledge of the impersonal or transcendental (jnani's(B.G.7.17-18 word mentioned)) and there are those who's hearts remain connected with Sri Bhagavan or who endeavour for spiritual perfection (yogi's(B.G.6.28 word mentioned)). These explanations are perfectly in accordance with shastra. The words jnani and yogi are acceptable so why get hung up on the word karmi?

It was used by Prabhupada in a similar fashion as he used the designations jnani and yogi, no foul intent there.

We Gaudiya's are not on a high horse. We simply repeat what Krishna Has said in the Bhagavad Gita, and what is said in the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is the shastric conclusion that Kevala Bhakti, or unalloyed devotion, to Sri Sri Radha Krishna is superior to all other forms of worship. That is not a Gaudiya conclusion, it is plainly stated in scripture time and again.

 

B.G. 6.47:

 

The truth is not equally palatable to all. We are speakers of the highest truth, not proudly so, but simply as parrots repeating the opinion of the Supreme Lord.

 

For example I myself have no qualification to claim anything, but I am simply repeating the words of Krishna and the spiritual masters, therefore it becomes bonafide. This is also what Prabhupada said about himself, in all his humility.

 

By parroting and following strictly the rules and regulations as per our guruvarga and the order of the bonafide guru, we are also gradually realizing that Truth, and indeed there are lots of devotees worldwide who are situated in that Truth. As such it is not just dry parroting. Although it may be just that in the beginning, in due time the taste will come, if one strictly adheres to the orders of one's spiritual master.

 

Any spiritual path that is not directed at the Supreme Lord is inferior, there is ample Vedic evidence to back up this statement. Similarly out of those paths, the path of kevala bhakti yoga to Lord Krishna is the highest path, and of this statement there is also ample Vedic evidence.

 

What can we do about it? We did not make it that way, Krishna did. There's no such thing as HK propaganda or hidden agenda's. The only "propaganda" we're making is freely handing out the exact words of Krishna to everyone, surely that is not a crime? In fact they are words that should be propagated all over the world.

 

And if those words sound like the putting down of every other religious path, then sorry, but we cannot and will not bend the truth in order for us to please and appease everyone.

 

This is not possible. Truth is one, but those who are under the clutches maya will not agree to that truth. That is their misfortune.

If we would bend the truth, and thus would not repeat the instructions and words of our guru parampara, we ourselves plus the whole pure message will become spoiled, corrupted.

 

As far as Prabhupada's word usage is concerned I can say that those who Prabhupada labelled as fools and rascals are also validated by shastra as being exactly that. He was and still is cutting down the jungle of confusion with his pure sword of truth. Lots of weed and poisonous undergrowth will object to their being cut down, but the result be that the truth will be lifted out of the quagmire of halftruths and blatant lies. His weapon of words were exactly appropriate at that time, and frankly I find them to be appropriate at all times.

 

I would invite you to come and test for yourself to see if it is true. It is not an empty bluff. There is practice also. Sincerely take up this practice of bhakti yoga and you will find out for yourself.

 

Wishing you all the best in your spiritual endeavours,

 

Haribol!

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

...........

...........................

Wishing you all the best in your spiritual endeavours,

 

Haribol!

 

 

Dear Nrsinghadev,

 

I loved your patient reply. You have tried to nicely explain your position on almost all isses I had raised.

I love a healthy discussion on spiritual-religious points of view.

 

As such, I'm trying to understand this truth from different Sampradaya's point of view and know it despite the 'differences'. All sampradayas back their statements with shastra quotes using individual purports. And no two sampradayas try to agree with each other always. Though they may quote shastras and speak about the same truth in different termnology. Though all agree, that the truth is one. You say it is Krsna/Krishna. Another will say it is Ram or Shiva. And all can well back up their statements with well volumed scriptural jugglery. This is the reason, I'm against, radical pushing of own sampradayas agenda over every other. There will always be differentiation. There will always be variety. Variety of religions, people and everything else in this world. But the truth can still unite them? What if a devotee is as exalted as any of the gaudiya adiGurus, but worship Ram or Shiva? Will he become inferior. There have been highly exaclted devotees of Lord Shiva who had "Spiritual body" of pure bliss. So much so that they dematerialized this body upon mahasamadhi. oh... did you read about St. Kabir? That was a good example. Shastra or no shastra. Would you accept Kabir? He had a "spiritual body"..

 

The terms used like karmis etc. get a bit deformed and the real meaning lost at times, especially with new comers. Just like your name Nrsimhadev. Are you Nrsimhadev??? Or Nrsimhadev Das? And the difference is huge. Right? Krsna himself or his servant...

 

I will put forth my queries/doubts to you soon, if you would wish to answer. Thanks.

 

Yk.